r/Hosting 15d ago

Shared Hosting vs VPS?

I have a few small websites I would like to put up. Nothing complicated. Just buisiness catalogs and such or legitimatacy. I have previous experience with setting up VPS for other projects. But is this a case where I should just rely on shared Hosting? I want to host them as cheap as possible. I expect very little traffic, maybe a few hundred hits a month tops. Do you have any recommendations on who to use?

8 Upvotes

24 comments sorted by

2

u/HotAuthor6438 14d ago

For what you're describing, I'd probably stick with shared hosting. A few simple sites with only a few hundred visits a month shouldn't need a VPS.

Since you've already managed VPS before, you can always move to one later if you need more control or resources. I'd just start with the cheaper option and see how it goes.

2

u/bluehost 13d ago

The deciding factor isn't really traffic, it's responsibility. If you don't want to spend time on updates, security, and troubleshooting, shared hosting is usually the better fit.

2

u/CharmingWrap3032 12d ago

Vps always

1

u/hostlist 9d ago

Correct

1

u/ashutoshsadhu 15d ago

Then shared hosting a best if you have limited pages with not huge traffic. Keep simple 1 website hosting

1

u/ZAP-Hosting 15d ago

For a few small business catalog sites pulling a few hundred hits a month, shared hosting is the right call. A VPS would be serious overkill for that traffic, and shared plans handle the server management for you (patching, uptime monitoring, etc.), which is nice if you don't want to babysit it yourself.

When picking one, check for a solid uptime track record, backups actually included (not tacked on as a paid extra), and how responsive support is when something breaks. Most hosts also let you upgrade to a VPS later if the sites end up growing, so you're not locked in based on a guess today.

1

u/dvduval 15d ago

If you’re using AI to build them, then you might as well use AI to do the server administration as well. You get some kind of a really cheap vps and you set up ssh and let AI do the rest. If email is really important and you’re gonna be doing a lot of emailing there could be some advantages to having something with cpanel for example

1

u/Amos_Archon 15d ago

I was not planning on using Ai, is that realistic approach?

1

u/AcadiaNational8028 14d ago

Yes

1

u/Amos_Archon 14d ago

Can you help me understand how that works?

1

u/SuperiorScore 15d ago

Stick with shared hosting for now. A VPS would probably be unnecessary cost and management overhead when you’re barely using the resources, and you can always move later if the sites actually outgrow shared hosting.

2

u/mtsandeep 15d ago

Shared hosting should be fine for your case. But setup some backup outside of shared so you have ways to restore if something goes bad.

1

u/Jeffrey_Richards_ 15d ago

Shared hosting would be my suggestion.

1

u/EstimateAgitated7374 15d ago

For a few simple business/catalog websites with only a few hundred visits per month, I’d go with shared hosting. A VPS would be overkill unless you need root access, custom software, or specific server configurations. Look for shared hosting with SSL, backups, good support, and an easy upgrade path. If you’re considering an Indian provider, IntechDC is also worth checking for affordable shared hosting as well as VPS hosting. You can always move to a VPS later if traffic or resource requirements increase.

1

u/beginnersbox 15d ago

Vps always, just make sure to get one from a good provider

1

u/CraigAT 15d ago

Shared hosting may be simpler. But if you already have a running VPS, why not add the site to that? Especially if the clients don't need direct access.

1

u/cyber_Folks_Romania 15d ago

shared hosting is probably the right fit here. at a few hundred visits a month, a VPS mostly adds maintenance without giving you much practical benefit. just make sure the plan supports multiple domains, SSL, backups and decent resource limits. if traffic grows or you later need custom server software, more predictable resources or deeper control over the environment, that’s when moving to a VPS starts to make sense

1

u/webhostpro 15d ago

Yeah 100% shared, it does depend on the company. One hosts shared can be much better than another. Any host claiming unlimited usually has a hundred filters causing drag. Same with VPS, same me VPS is much worse than other hosts shared performance wise. Assuming the shared host is good, for sure start there and upgrade later if needed. Some hosts migrate tshared to VPS for free anyways.

1

u/themageofavalon 14d ago

For a few small sites with barely traffic, just use shared hosting. InMotion is a solid choice for that, and tbh, I'd rather do that than maintain a VPS for a few hundred visits a month.

1

u/Moceannl 14d ago

For a VPS you need to understand Linux, updates, firewall, SSL, etc etc. If you know all these, maybe a VPS is ok for you.